Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/February 2020

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← January 2020 Votes for deletion archives for February 2020 (current) April 2020 →

Per Wikivoyage:Information for LGBT travel#Why there's no "LGBT" section, LGBT listings should be integrated into destination articles in their relevant sections. If having a separate "LGBT" section or subsection of a destination is not desired, surely having it all in a separate article is even less desirable. Thus I think we should merge and redirect this article. (And if so, we should also reconsider the text in the lede of Wikivoyage:Information for LGBT travel that cites this article as an example of LGBT as an acceptable travel topic.) --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I launched the as an experiment. Finding enough material to merit an article might be difficult, and there are other online resources (such as RFSL and QX ) which provide similar information which is more updated. /Yvwv (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: we have articles for Literary London, Harry Potter tourism, diving in various countries, and for travelling with children (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, including Stockholm with children). I think its useful to have specialist articles so that people with a specific interest can read up to see if there us enough in one destination to make a trip worthwhile. Tghat doesn't mean that information of specific interest to LGBT people would beremoved from the main article, anymore than information for people with kids is removed now. I think Wikivoyage could be appealing to readers who are looking for special itineraries, like "New York City for Jews", "England for trainspotters", etc. Ground Zero (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an interesting question. On the face of it, "LGBT wherever" is a legitimate travel topic. The issue is that it does contradict the guideline quoted by Bigpeteb. So should we reconsider this guideline? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: let's be clear that the guideline explicitly allows this type of article: "Nothing in this policy precludes the creation of travel topics such as LGBT Stockholm." Thus article does not contradict the guideline. In fact, to delete article, we would need to change the guideline. Maybe this discussion should be taking place at Wikivoyage talk:Information for LGBT travel rather than here. Ground Zero (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Can you find a single other example of such a page? I can't. The only other such page that even exists is Belfast/Gay and lesbian Belfast, which was merged and redirected to Belfast in 2013, I would imagine for the exact same reasons I'm nominating this page. I think this is a sole outlier, and that there's no content here that doesn't belong in Stockholm, just as we have done for lots of other cities that are notable LGBT destinations. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The outcome of this discussion was to keep this article. We also have an article on LGBT-friendly beach resorts, and the "with children" and Literary London articles for readers with special interests are absolutely analogous to this page. What is the argument for deleting this article and keeping the "with children" and similar articles? Even if it were the first and only of this type, that should not prevent us from keeping it as a model. Wikivoyage is still growing. Or, at least, it will keep growing if we allow it and encourage it to do so. Is there any content in the "with children" articles that we wouldn't have in the destination articles? Or are the "with children" articles just showing parents the information they are looking for in a convenient summary? Ground Zero (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your point about how articles about "[Destination] for children" are fine, but I'm not convinced there will ever be as much utility in an "LGBT [destination]" article. Kid-friendly activities will probably be spread all across the city, but LGBT things in most cities are concentrated in single neighborhoods like New York City/Chelsea, San Francisco/Castro, Chicago/Boystown, Atlanta/Midtown, etc. And what kinds of things would we list in such an article? National policies should be (and generally are) covered in national or region articles. Pride parades are explicitly for allies as well as LGBT people, so they should be and are mentioned on city pages. There aren't a whole lot of LGBT museums or activities. (Well, there are certainly things like community sports leagues and such, but those aren't helpful for short-term visitors.) I don't know what an LGBT restaurant or hotel would be. The main thing people are looking for is bars/clubs, but those can be and are listed in city and district articles.
            I'll admit this is being hampered by the generally poor coverage of LGBT on WV, even in some of the most famously LGBT-friendly cities. See the paltry listings in the aforementioned articles. I've tried to improve that with my contributions to Seattle/Capitol Hill and Tokyo/Shinjuku. Even so, if I were to write an LGBT Seattle article, I don't think it would be any more useful than where we already say "Capitol Hill is Seattle's gay district" and then let readers find what they're looking for in that district.
            I'd be much more supportive of national articles. If we had an article like LGBT United States, we could talk about the history of gay rights in the U.S., go into more detail on national and state policies (such as bathroom bills), and list and describe LGBT-friendly (or -unfriendly) destinations. I think that would have a lot more utility than an "LGBT [city]" article ever will. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've updated and expanded the article, so now I think it's not so bad. It puts all of the queer bars in one article, rather than spreading them around the Stockholm neighbourhood articles. I also addedcacsauna, which needn't goninnthe city if neighbourhood articles. That alone is useful. Not every city is going to have enough to warrant an LGBT article, but thag shouldn't stop people from creating LGBT city articles (or LGBT regional or national articles) where there is enough to list. I am planning an LGBT Toronto article as a result of thus discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep - I think that we should add a sentence to Wikivoyage:Information for LGBT travel#Why there's no "LGBT" section saying that complete articles for destinations that have a lot to interest a LGBT traveller are welcome, as they are for any other "special group". I think that having a separate section in a destination article would suggest that these listing are only for LGBT, when they should just appear by price, district etc as other listings. There is no conflict in welcoming complete articles while opposing sections in destination articles. AlasdairW (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too think it's perfectly OK to have LGBT articles for important gay travel destinations ie. places where there is a lot to write about when it comes to LGBT culture. If it's not a place where people travel specifically for LGBT events, establishments and what have you, then it probably doesn't need such an article . Ypsilon (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no objection to this kind of article, but I'm not understanding why if it's inappropriate to have separate "LGBT" sections in articles, it's perfectly OK to have separate LGBT articles. Could we discuss the thinking behind that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage_talk:Information_for_LGBT_travel would be a good place to start that discussion if you want to. Ground Zero (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the end of Wikivoyage talk:Information for LGBT travel#Wikivoyage should have LGBT city articles and please participate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It doesn't have much content. Are the eateries actually gay venues? Is The Royal Opera a gay venue or what is inferred in its description as "frequented by gay men"? The gay sauna is a pay for sex venue that should probably be deleted, and the other gay bars could probably be put in the Stockholm article and in the LGBT article's Stockholm subsection of Europe along with the legal information and information about "sexual minority features at some local museums" during the week of the Pride parade/festival. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the article gathers together the venues of particular interest to LGBT people from across the Stockholm neighbourhood articles, so it is useful to readers, like "for children" articles are useful for parents. It is permitted by the guideline, so there isn't a basis for deleting it. I haven't been to a gay sauna, but they are not about prostitution any more than a bar or hotel is. Ground Zero (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you were too focused on responding with the same response you gave above to read my vote, but I didn't vote to delete it. I voted to merge the content because there's barely anything there and a lot of it doesn't justify itself as presented in the article. What is there would not burden the LGBT article or the Stockholm article. The gay sauna is probably a different discussion, but are you sure that there aren't any gay saunas that employ people to have sex with patrons? I don't think you can guarantee that and I think the likelihood that some or many of them do is high. I don't know if there is a way of knowing, but I suspect there are shady practices, possibly even involving sexual slavery, in some countries while other countries likely have better practices like other parts of the sex industry. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should have written "there is no basis in the guideline for merging the article." As I mentioned above, assembling all of the information of particular interest to LGBT people from across the Stockholm neighbourhood articles is useful to readers. It is fine as a topic article like our other topic articles. Tourism agencies have pages for LGBT people and other groups with special interests, presumably because there are people looking for those pages, so why wouldn't we?
At 5,500 bytes, it is not a short article. You can check Special:ShortPages. We have 10,000 articles that are 3,600 bytes or shorter.
If you're going to raise the spectre of sexual slavery, or even prostitution, in a Stockholm sauna, I think the ball is in your court to provide some sort of evidence as justification for deletion. I have never heard of gay saunas in developed countries employing prostitutes, but I could be wrong. Ground Zero (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We merge content that can't hold articles all the time. There's lots of precedent for merging articles with very little content like this one. I suspect most of those 10,000 articles are at least city or regional articles. We have specific guidelines that favor keeping city and region articles. Stubby travel topics are not the same. There is no fallback for a stubby travel topic. Because there are an infinite number of articles that could be created as "travel topics", if one can't hold an article, it doesn't need an article. There are only 6 venues listed that are clearly LGBT, one having only a monthly gay event. Those could easily be listed in the GLBT article where it will still be found by those interested in the topic. I don't think this is enough to warrant an entire travel topic dedicated to it. Other cities, maybe, but not this one.
You need to reread the Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy, because it explicitly states "Locations or listings of brothels or bars where sexual services may be purchased (directly or indirectly)." Going to a gay sauna is paying for sex whether you'd categorize it as directly or indirectly, and the policy does not exempt developed countries. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In a place like Stockholm, while people go to a sauna (or a bar) to meet someone for sex, you pay for the services of the sauna or entry into and drinks at a bar. If you have sex with someone you meet there, that's between you and the person you meet. If you pay $100 for a beer and an employee has sex with you, then you are paying indirectly for sex. That is very different from paying for the use of a sauna. Ground Zero (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the face of it, I agree that this is not much of a travel topic article and could easily be merged back into Stockholm and relevant Stockholm district articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a policy or guideline that says that travel topic articles have to reach a critical mass before they can be kept? I can't find such a policy. For the sake of keeping all of the LGBT info for Stockholm in one place, would it be better to have this as a section of the Stockholm city article with the bar and sauna listings, or as a stand-alone article? Ground Zero (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy that kind of amounts to that, yep. See Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Reasons to delete articles:
  • ...they are travel topics that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year, and there is no suitable travel topic to redirect to. Template:Outlinetopic should be used to tag topics at the outline level.
The problem is that Template:Outlinetopic was changed in this edit and then again this time, in spite of there seemingly being no consensus for those edits. I think Traveler100 needs to explain the justification for those 2014 edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: thanks for finding that. So this doesn't apply in this case because the article has been substantively edited in the last year. Beyond that, I dont think this us an the outline level anymore. I think it us usable. Wikivoyage:Travel topic status says a travel topic is:
"Outline:" Has at least an introduction (this can be as short as a single sentence explaining what the topic is) and an outline of headers laid out for the article, similar to standard Wikivoyage destination templates. Some of the sections of the outline may have content, but not all of them.
"Usable:" Has at least a good overview of the topic, and some useful material under each heading.
I think this article is more on the Usable side than on the Outline side. Further, I am concerned that if we are willing to have LGBT destination articles, like "for children" destination articles, but we delete the only one we have, we are setting a bad precedent. Ground Zero (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, although it's possible another city might have more fodder for this topic. I think the main point here is that this article is not going to be deleted. That being the case, since you're continuing to develop it, I think we can revisit the question of whether to merge and redirect it to some later time and discuss it on the article's talk page, rather than here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that in trying to build out this article, I've collected information from about five online guides to LGBT travel in Stockholm, which they call the "gay capital of Scandinavia". There is a market for this information. It would be surprising if Wikivoyage were not willing to be host for such a guide. I don't go to bars or saunas, but I would read this article if I were going to Stockholm. Ground Zero (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I have no objection to such articles existing. In fact, in principle, if people want to create LGBT New York, LGBT London, LGBT San Francisco, LGBT Sydney, LGBT Chicago or LGBT Montreal articles, I don't see why not. For that matter, even if you're straight, there's no reason why you can't travel to a city to experience its gay scene, especially given that the gay districts in those cities I mentioned are major tourist attractions that are perfectly safe to visit. The main question is, is there enough content to merit a separate article for each of them, rather than putting that information in the main city articles. So long as there is enough information to justify a separate article, I have no objection. The dog2 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (indent) You can call it the "gay capital of Scandinavia", but that seems to say more about a lack of gay venues across the region than it does about an abundance in Stockholm. The fact that you've actually checked a bunch of guides on this topic and still couldn't find any content is even more reason to just merge it. You say there's a market but keep ignoring the fact that no one is saying the venues can't be listed. Put them in the LGBT article and the Stockholm article. Your precedent concern is moot because the arguments are not that "LGBT should never have articles". If someone were to try and make that argument, they could simply be shown this discussion and proven wrong. Why not add your venues to the GLBT article and if a section or continent gets too hefty, split off like is suggested with every other type of article? "Sauna" by the way is just a euphemism. You should NEVER go to a gay sauna if your intention is anything but sex. You don't "have sex with someone you meet there". You have sex right there. It's FOR sex. People will touch you, grope you, and more without asking (It's expected). I've never been to a regular sauna or hot spring where that happens or where you wouldn't be immediately kicked out (probably with the police involved) if you tried it. Gay saunas fall very clearly within the bounds of "paying for sex directly or indirectly". Your naivete and ignorance on the topic is no reason to ignore that. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ChubbyWimbus, there is no call for your tone here. Typing in all caps is rude, and personal attacks are unconstructive. After I've made these improvements to the article, saying that I "couldn't find any content" is rude. I have done a hell of a work to build Wikivoyage, so you can be civil to me, even when we disagree. You and I disagree about your interpretation of "indirectly". I think you are over-reaching here. If you pay to go into a gay sauna, you get to use the facilities of the sauna. If no-one wants to have sex with you, you don't get to have sex, and you don't get a refund, as far as I know. Your sauna fees do not entitle you to sex, just to access to the sauna. If other editors agree with your interpretation, I will accept that. Ground Zero (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • All caps on an entire sentence or more is yelling and rude. All caps on a single word is for emphasis like italics. It's very common on the internet and not rude at all. All-caps for acronyms is just standard. You're right, I should have said that you barely found any listings, although I wonder if that would have really made you feel better. Your work on other articles has no bearing on this one, by the way. I found this article, which you happened to edit, to be below the threshold of warranting an article. That was all. There is nothing to read into. The facility is designed for sex and sexual encounters. Sure, you could hypothetically pay to enter, bathe yourself, and leave but that's a VERY dishonest and misleading description of what a gay sauna is and what its function is. That's not what patrons do, and I'm finding it very hard to believe that with all of your passion about this topic you don't know that. Even if you enter and are so undesirable that no one wants to have sex with you, you can still be voyeuristic, you can still touch and grope people, and you can even find people who are sleeping and suck them off so they can't (or won't) make you go away. It's a sex den. Your description of what a gay sauna is and its function as "merely paying to access a sauna" is honestly not putting the traveler first. It's a very irresponsible description that could lead to a very traumatic experience for someone who believed that they were just "paying to use the sauna facilities" only to be groped and/or witness various forms of homosexual intercourse. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about gay saunas as I've never been to one, but I will say that I'm a straight guy who has been to gay bars, and I've never had a problem. Nobody tried to grope me or do anything that made me feel uncomfortable. Maybe there would be specific gay bars where there's an unwritten understanding that you go there to be groped (and to be fair, there are also straight bars like that where straight men go to be groped by the bar girls), but it's certainly not true for all gay establishments.
In any case, let's try to keep things civil here and focus on what is of concern to travellers. In the case of straight bars where men go to be groped by the bar girls, we should certainly inform people about what those bars are so unsuspecting tourists not looking for sex would not wander into them by mistake. So if there are gay establishments that are in a similar vein, we should certainly inform travellers about them. The key thing I would say is to write about them in a way that is not promoting them, but merely informing travellers that the name is a euphemism so they know what to expect. The dog2 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ChubbyWimbus: I've added or updated 15 listings, so whether you say that I found no content or "barely found any listings" is not constructive. Yes, it's not just me you should be civil to: it's any editor who is working to build Wikivoyage, even if they disagree with you on the interpretation of the wording of policies or guidelines.
I agree that gay saunas are "sex dens". But since your entry fee is not a payment for sex, there is no guarantee of getting sex, and people there are not being paid for sex, if you want to prohibit sex saunas from being listed, you should propose a change to Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy to make that explicit. Ground Zero (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure about this one. If you take out all of the stuff which isn't really gay, but just happens to appeal to some gay people because they appeal to lots of people (the opera, a waterfront restaurant, the Abba attractions - none of these are niche in their appeal), what are you left with? A few clubs which could easily be moved to 'Drink' in the proper district, a pride event which is almost certainly already featured in the city article, and a sauna experience. If there is a lot more still to add, then I can be persuaded of this article's utility, and vote to keep, but otherwise I would merge and redirect.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why would you take out the stuff that isn't exclusively LGBT? We're trying to build a useful travel guide, and having articles that are useful to different types of travellers is a way to do that, whether they are LGBT people, parents, people who are interested in literary travel, or scuba diving. As a gay traveller, I would read this article if I were going to Stockholm because it brings together things are commonly of interest to LGBT people in one place. Lots of gay men like ABBA, and lots of others like the opera. If there were a women's music festival or art gallery or hockey team, it would make sense to add that as these things, while not exclusively lesbian, are of interest to lesbians. Let's not make up a rule which — if applied — results in scrapping articles that are useful to some groups of travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that you wouldn't list non-kosher Chinese restaurants in a "Jewish New York" guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Talk about broad brush strokes. Sorry, but people are people. Most people like some, but not all, of the things from the following list: ABBA, opera, art galleries, hockey, music festivals, and restaurants. All the information in the article is useful, but the vast majority of it is useful to a much wider audience than (the stereotype of) gay men. And I don't know whether pigeonholing certain activities as "gay" or "lesbian" beyond those specifically about pride or relationships is particularly helpful in 2020.
Moreover, I don't think anyone is arguing against the existence of this type of article, but you are formulating your arguments as though they were. I am specifically interested in whether there is enough content to justify having this particular article split from the mainstream Stockholm pages. As the article stands at the moment, the content that I would consider specifically relevant to LGBT travellers as a group distinguished from the rest of humanity is looking decidedly thin on the ground. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nominated for deletion on the basis that there shouldn't be separate LGBT destination articles. The argument has moved on to "there isn't enough content", even though it is a "usable article" now, and there are lots of destination articles and lots of travel topic articles with much less content.
Most or all of the listings are in the Stockholm article or distributed among the Stockholm neighbourhood articles, so this is not about segregation.
Assembling the listings that are of most interest to LGBT travellers in one place is useful to LGBT travellers like me. This is why we have travel topic articles. Merging its content into a bunch of other articles makes Wikivoyage less useful for LGBT readers. Ground Zero (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards merge for now. An "LGBT Sweden" or "LGBT Scandinavia" article may be viable as there is more content to work with. Also many of the listings like the ones relating to ABBA are pandering to stereotypes. Gizza (roam) 23:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The affinity that many gay men have for ABBA is not a stereotype, it's a real thing: Towleroad, a gay website, The Smithsonian Magazine, Out.com. Ground Zero (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the affinity New York Jews have with Chinese restaurants and movie theatres is a real thing, yet I wouldn't list anything not specifically Jewish or kosher in a "Jewish New York" article, if I were writing one. Conflating all this stuff with LGBT smacks a bit of appropriation or article-padding to me, and if I accepted ABBA as gay, OK, but it was just the leading edge, as now you're claiming opera and women's hockey for the article. What's next, and what's your limit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My limit is things of particular interest and use to LGBT travellers. I don't think that's a bad thing for a travel guide. I don't understand the desire to make the article less useful to a groups of readers, it to make the information less accessible to a those readers. LGBT travel guides for Stockholm are a thing on the internet. Why not Wikivoyage? Ground Zero (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should have the latitude to develop the article as you see fit and prove the skeptics wrong. I'm ready to ignore the article for a while to help give you the space to do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is well developed enough to stand on its own, especially compared to many other travel topic articles. If editors want to restrict travel topic articles to a narrow definition of listings are exclusively of interest to a community, then that changes, and we should have a policy or guideline to make it clear to contributors what is and is not permitted. I don't see the benefit to readers of such a change. Ground Zero (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should keep city topic articles like this one if there is enough content for a separate article to make sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if the article is kept, the name should change to something clearer. At the moment it isn't obvious if the article is about LGBT culture in Stockholm, which cis travellers may be interested in, or Stockholm for LGBT travellers, which can include. Judging from this discussion it appears to be the latter. But LGBT travellers is quite a diverse group representing 10% of the world. Even if we narrow it down to 10% of the English-speaking world, I'm not convinced that all of the listings are shared interests among the community. Pop divas I understand to an extent, but none of my LGBT friends and colleagues that I'm close to and know well (predominantly in Australia) are interested in women's ice hockey. Interest in hockey could be more of a Canadian trait than an LGBT trait. Obviously there are no listings that appeal to 100% of people but it should still be a significant number of that people if it's going to be placed in an article like this. And if there are articles having listings with similarly tenuous links to other demographic groups like children then those articles should also be fixed. Gizza (roam) 05:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So do I like ABBA because I'm bi? If I were straight, would I not like them? Or is it actually nothing to do with sexuality, but rather because my mum was a student in the 70s and has passed on much of her questionable taste in music to me? Maybe it's a generational thing, but I strongly resist the idea that any of my interests, passions, likes and dislikes are caused by my sexuality. If you (one) grew up in a time when your identity as a gay man was more likely to be under attack by wider society, I can see why carving out a specific gay identity that encompasses things that have nothing to do with sexuality would be appealing, but that's not me, and I don't think that represents the other people I know of my age either.
I'm also willing to see whether the article develops, but I haven't really been moved from my initial position that quite a bit of its current content is not specifically LGBT, and that the amount of stuff that is LGBT is nothing exceptional for a western European city.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So because you don't like ABBA, does that mean that other LGBT people don't like ABBA? I provided links to articles that speak of the significance of ABBA to the LGBT community, so you don't have to take my word for it. Nobody says that that means all LGBT people like ABBA, just a lot of us. And if it doesn't interest younger LGBT readers, should it be merged out of existence? Or are we willing to have older readers too? I do notice that a lot of gay young men like Lady Gaga, and a lot of young lesbians like Tegan and Sarah. So where there is a Lady Gaga museum some day, we can add that too.
This article won't be of interest or use to every LGBT person or to every straight person who is interested in LGBT culture, but does it have to be? Or is it sufficient that it is of interest and use to some or many readers? If we were running out of space and we have to make room for something of broader appeal, I would understand, but we have articles about video game tourism and TV show tourism. I don't play video games. Does that mean those articles should be deleted or merged? I don't think so. Ground Zero (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I do like ABBA, but I don't consider that to be of relevance to my sexuality. Why would someone looking for ABBA attractions in Stockholm read the LGBT Stockholm article, and not instead prefer to read an 'On the trail of ABBA in Stockholm' itinerary? Lots of LGBT people like Doctor Who and have done for decades, I could list several reasons why and probably even provide citations. But even I, who when you mentioned Tegan and Sarah thought instead of Tegan and Sarah, wouldn't consider putting DW filming locations in a hypothetical LGBT Cardiff article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stockholmlgbt.com features an article called "Mamma Mia: Four Things you can't miss at ABBA the Museum". I'm not making this up. You are not all LGBT people. The rainbow flag surely represents the diversity within the community. Lots of us like ABBA, others don't, and that's okay. I don't like bars and saunas, but I recognize that they are of interest to many LGBT travellers, so they should be in the article too. If someone wants to create an ABBA travel topic article, that should be a welcome addition that would also list the ABBA sites, just as Literary London lists sites that are also listed on other London articles. Ground Zero (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm pretty sure there's an LGBT Thomas and Friends fandom that's outraged the usual nutters in the right wing press, so you may wish to throw your support behind saving the above nomination :P--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike LGBT Stockholm, Thomas Land isn't a "usable article". It isn't in anyway useful, and the original contributor has done nothing to improve it since the deletion nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my two cents' worth. Sure, ABBA is popular among many straight people too, and you don't have to be LGBT to enjoy the music produced by LGBT singers or bands like Tegan and Sara (anyone likes "Everything is awesome"?). But I think if there are specific bands that have a special significance to the LGBT community that they don't have for straight people, we can mention them in articles about LGBT tourism. The dog2 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the last additions, the article is substantial enough. /Yvwv (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Relating to the ABBA discussion above (as I see the issue): Because this article has a theme, the descriptions and listings should all be written in a way that justifies why they are of specific interest to LGBT travelers (aka: the theme). For example, the restaurant described as "a waterfront restaurant" in this article. The description suggests that "waterfront restaurant" is an LGBT-specific thing and that's confusing. Is there something unstated that makes it a clear and valid LGBT listing or are we actually saying that being a "waterfront restaurant" on its own makes it significant for LGBT travelers (as opposed to any traveler)? We don't know, because the listing doesn't tell us. We just have to guess why it's there, which seems to be the issue with the ABBA Museum. Not justifying the listing leads the reader to wonder or make assumptions about why the listing was included, which can come off as stereotyping or touting. Every listing in this type of article should be clearly connected back to the theme. That could be as simple as stating that a restaurant is popular because it's located in/around the gay district and is heavily frequented by clubgoers in the wee hours who have few/no other options (Has LGBT relevance even though nothing about the place itself is LGBT) OR it could be something more meaningful. It just needs to be justified. If it's not already a gay venue, we shouldn't assume that it's too obvious to justify. Gay icons are not immune from generational differences and disparities, after all. There are gays growing up without any affinity towards (or familiarity with) ABBA. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud. Why is there so much energy being put into cutting this article down, removing listings or trying to merge it out of existence? I have expanded this article into a usable article by Wikivoyage standards. As a gay man, I believe that this is useful for many (not all) LGBT travellers. When non-LGBT people come along and start picking at it and demanding that each listing be justified and explained, I want to remind everyone that we are trying to build a travel guide here. Let's spend more energy building and improving, and less energy trying to tear down. This article does not harm the project, and it may inform and attract readers. I have already provided links above explaining why ABBA is relevant. I am not going to litigate this any further. I put a lot of work into creating and improving the Christian sites on Japan article because a couple of editors had created content in the main Japan article that was worth preserving because it might be of interest, albeit to a very narrow audience. This article will get of interest to a larger audience. And yes, I am in a much better position to determine what will be of interest to an LGBT audience than most of the people who are questioning the article. Ground Zero (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are either assuming everyone else is "non-LGBT" or characterizing everyone as "non-LGBT" in order to avoid dealing with valid criticism of the article, but no one is required to reveal their sexuality to you in order to interact with you, critique articles you create/contribute to, or to voice thoughts on LGBT articles, and one user actually did reveal that s/he is bisexual, so you're wrong on the very face of your assertion. Providing "links above" doesn't justify the listing in the article. I don't see why you would even take issue with maintaining a theme in a themed article. The Christian Sites in Japan article that you mentioned must relate all of its listings to Christianity or some famous Christians. So, too, do all of the LGBT article listings need to be related to something LGBT. In both cases (and all others), the relation must be stated and not assumed. You are taking the critiques personally when they are not and trying to make it personal by to using your sexuality to claim authority and shut down criticism. It is not and should not be about you. Relating listings to themes is the only way themes work as themes. It doesn't matter if the theme is LGBT, Christianity, aliens, or whatever. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Thedog2 identified with straight, and no-one said, "I'm gay and I find this article useless". So I guess that makes me the resident expert in what gay men find useful. Everyone has the right to have an opinion here, but my view as the resident expert should not be dismissed. Why do "all of the LGBT article listings need to be related to something LGBT"? Is that a policy? Or just something you've made up? Wikivoyage has is a ton of stuff that is out of date, personal rants, touting, or not travel related if you're looking for stuff to delete. Or you could focus on expanding or improving articles. This article is useful, and it is time to move on from picking it apart. Give it a rest. I don't know why this is even still listed when it is a vastly different article from the one that was nominated. Ground Zero (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to make clear, as I was referred to, that I never said this article should be deleted, and don't support deletion. I remain skeptical about some of the listings, but there are better uses of my time than arguing about them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Noted. As there has been no further discussion about redirecting or merging for a while, I'm going to close this. Discussion can continue on the article's talk page if needed. VfD isn't the place for this discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Size of article

LGBT Stockholm 9,672 bytes, Stockholm with children 2,352 bytes, Giza with children 3,475 bytes, New Orleans with children 8,212 bytes, New York City with children 7,697 bytes, Literary London 7,009 bytes, Monty Python 1,912 bytes, Nordic Noir 4,756 bytes, Millennium Tour 6,687 bytes, Horror fiction 6,375 bytes. I could go on. If we are going to start apply a quantum limit to travel topic articles, we'll be merging lot of content and eliminating a lot of articles that readers may find interesting or useful. I don't think that builds Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a substantial article. We can debate about some of its content (for example, is there anything inherently or exclusively gay about ABBA?), but perhaps it's time to close this thread, as no-one has actually proposed to delete the article, and Vfd is about whether to delete or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. ABBA isn't exclusively gay, and Chinese food on Christmas Day isn't exclusively Jewish, but both are cultural phenomena. If you want to understand the importance of ABBA to gay culture, watch the movie Priscilla Queen of the Desert (not the musical -- they used Madonna for that). Ground Zero (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Madonna is considered a gay icon and is openly bi, so she's LGBT. Quite a few artists and groups are popular in the gay community, and some of them are themselves straight. But we don't have to discuss that in a Vfd thread, and I do take your point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will offer one more comment, though, while I'm thinking about it: In a "Jewish New York" travel topic, if someone wanted to write one, I wouldn't include any non-kosher Chinese restaurants. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. If you included just any Chinese restaurant, then the article could be flooded with them because there must be, like nine or ten Chinese restaurants in NYC. That's too many to list. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blank phrasebooks started by User:Mayon V

These would be Aragonese phrasebook, Asturian phrasebook, Aymara phrasebook, Extremaduran phrasebook, Fon phrasebook - oh hell, probably everything starting with Ivatan phrasebook here - it's really too much work for me to copy and paste dozens of names of blank phrasebooks. Maybe Ivatan could be kept because it's a Filipino language and so identified, so maybe Mayon V will add more to the phrasebook when his current 1-day block elapses. It would be great to speedy-delete all of these. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Mayon V, particularly User talk:Mayon V#Don't start articles you can't work on for background. There's no way Mayon V knows all these languages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I like the idea of phrasebooks for all kinds of languages but there is literally no one who speaks Extremaduran who doesn't also speak Spanish. There is no point to these. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not the issue. The issue is that these are just phrasebook templates that the article-starter cannot fill in because they don't know these languages. Let's please focus on that. Extremaduran might very well be a legitimate topic for a phrasebook, if someone who actually knew the language started the phrasebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ikan Kekek about this. I was excited to see a new Guarani phrasebook – and then disappointed when I saw that it's a completely empty skeleton which begins with the sentence "Name of Language is the main language of Country." The creator didn't even bother to fill in the name of the language or the country? An article that looks like this is embarrassing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, knowing phrases in Guarani/Jopara has a lot more utility than (e.g.) Aragonese. I have argued in the past for keeping minority language phrasebooks but there is no value in keeping minority language phrasebooks that also have no content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your views on that, it's not relevant to this thread, which is purely about a bunch of empty phrasebooks started by someone who doesn't know the languages in question, and I don't want this thread to be sidetracked down that tangent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - all of these phrasebooks could be useful, if written by someone who speaks the languages. Dozens of empty template phrasebooks is worse than nothing, because they confound the expectations of anyone who clicks on them. It is conceivable that somebody knows all of those Iberian languages well enough to write a phrasebook on each, but I'm not sure that person is User:Mayon V.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But of the Iberian ones, there could be someone who's fluent in two, but who can fill in all of them with basic phrases.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they don't even have the full phrasebook template. Articles, especially topic articles, shouldn't be created in mainspace if you can't or don't plan to add even a little content. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I am in favour of having phrasebooks for minority languages that virtually nobody is monolingual in, or even "dead" languages like Latin or Sanskrit if they have some sort of cultural significance, there is absolutely no point in having a blank phrasebook. If somebody who actually speaks Latin (or whatever other language) wants to start a phrasebook for that language, go for it, but don't create the article and leave it blank. The dog2 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan Kekek - and now that my memory is jogged, I'm recalling that we left the door open for him to be unblocked if only he'd respond to our messages on his user talk page or at Talk:Bikol phrasebook. Which I suppose technically he did, albeit under a different name. I guess I'm all right with holding off on an indefinite ban for now, but I would caution us not to be too tolerant of any backsliding back into incommunicado mode. Quite frankly, he's lucky to have been given the second chance he's currently enjoying, never mind a third. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite block makes a speedy delete entirely reasonable. (In fact, so does any block at all, IMHO.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

A page about an airport without passenger flights has no purpose on this website. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There weren't as many of these as I initially thought (most of the list was projectspace or userspace), and so I have managed to deal with the remaining mainspace links, aside from redirects which should remain until this is concluded.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical. I find it a pity to make the page, which once was useful, unavailable for readers. It isn't useful for travellers as such any more, but having it does little harm – given that the header makes it clear where to go for actual travel information. Keeping it will also make links on or off site continue to lead travellers to our relevant and up-to-date articles; there will be outdated links from elsewhere for years to come. I detest sites with link rot. --LPfi (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't keep listings for closed businesses anywhere else on WV. Why should we do so for an airport? --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/February_2020&oldid=4919535"